Thanks to Frank Brus, at least one camera is now on YouTube in full, with sound. Many thanks to other skeptics who volunteered with other helpful suggestions and ideas: to J.J., Ruth, Jim, and Raymond. Thanks to Steve for info about bit-torrent (at least we don’t have to go there this time).

An excellent talent pool out there. I didn’t even know some people had access to post Very Long Movies on Youtube (1 hour 56 mins.) Some of my favourite points are at the end. Check out the last 15 minutes.

There were two cameras recording at the same time:

View 2 (Front more distant camera)

…

OR (UPDATE) View 1 (Back camera view) closer.

Thanks to Barry Corke for driving hundreds of kilometers with his high tech equipment to record this for no fee at all!

The videos posted there both had sound glitches after 26 minutes. Thanks to Frank, I think we have fixed it here. If a Youtube becomes available for the other view, I shall add it.

Thank you also to the many people who made a much appreciated Christmas contribution — of all sizes. No tip is too small. I am grateful.

Compare that to the final ABC-Smith&Nasht version that went to air

In the end the “Jo & David segment” was only four minutes long. If they were impartial they would not have spent so much of that four minutes on the “paranoia” and the extra camera-man. Instead they would they have spent, say, two whole minutes showing four graphs, and another minute showing that Jo and David are volunteers, that the big money is on Anna’s side of the debate? What matters more to the Australian debate about whether every family should spend something like $1,000 this year on taxes and fees to reduce the global temperature — the failure of the climate models, or the ABC’s spin on those who resist the government agenda?

Does the Australian taxpayer get value for money with this production, or did they unknowingly fund propaganda and advertising for Labor Party policies?

Would the narrator sum up with the key point that the difference between alarmists and skeptics is that skeptics want observations while the alarmists rely on models? Or that fueling the skepticism is a wealth of data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley Centre, Argo and weather balloons? Would they have spent 10 seconds explaining that while Jo and David are not climate scientists, David has six degrees in maths and stats including a Phd from Stanford, and both of them won prizes in their areas in university?

Could the doco makers have used proper images of graphs, or did it help the public understand the skeptic case by briefly showing an oblique shaded image, and not explaining the significance of the graph (including that the pre-Argo data is near worthless)?

PS: From comments on the other thread, I may not have made Nick Minchin’s role clear. He was approached to do the show as the skeptical anchor, got assurances it would not be hostile (yes, he was suspicious), and asked David and me to help him try to convince Anna Rose. He’s a well versed skeptic. I was impressed with his affable, yet well informed demeanor and patience with Anna.

Anna, on-the-other-hand, came with petty Desmog attack points and no awareness of what skeptics argued. She ignored every point we made. Look for the insightful bit where, after an hour and 38 minutes of debate, it starts to dawn on Anna that it isn’t going the way she’d imagined. Anna checks that “yes” we understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, and that “yes” we agree levels of CO2 are rising — and she simply cannot understand why that isn’t the end of the argument. Flummoxed. Completely clueless, non-quantitative, and ignorant. Yet skilfully cashing in on the government propaganda wave, doing much better than David and me in the climate money and government-approval stakes. (In her eyes, she is doubtless winning: she gets the money, accolades, the radio interviews, and the meeting with the PM. Skeptics get next to no money, plenty of bully-boy-scorn, and are shunned by anyone who’s, you know, “really important”. Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.)

Transcript of the interview. The dialog that made it to the finished documentary that was broadcast is highlighted in blue. Note the fancy cut and paste job they did to make David appear something he did not, so as to conceal the fact that we presented four bits of evidence, not one and the dodgy thermometers.

——————————

And GregB (who is in that same kitchen pictured above right now) says hello to Trish in NZ

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 8.7/10 (90 votes cast)

Full UnCut video now available - "I Can Change Your Mind" Evans, Nova, Minchin & Rose., 8.7 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

(Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.)

That is my impression as well. Groomed yes. But will she be able to make it – is yet to be seen. The monetary forces at work in the world today could well shift her whole paradigm under her feet, and leave her stranded holding an ideological position that no longer is relevant.

I now see that an ABC executive has come out in support of William’s pedophillia slur.

That being the case what I would like to see is a group of prominent sceptics – Plimer, Carter, Franks, Ridd, Salby, Stockwell, Jo and David, O’Brian, McClean, Jensen, Minchin etc – bring a joint defamation action against Williams and the ABC which, given their outrageous support of this man, means they are not just innocent diseminators but complicit in the imputation contained in William’s statement.

The point about this is that it would establish parameters for the alarmists who are now acting without restraint.

A bit of heartwarming news- The likelihood of a Greens Party candidate getting up (get it?) in the ACT is about as close to zero as my chance of winning a super lotto jackpot between now and 2013.

(And it won’t increase a lot, even if someone buys me a ticket, unlikely as that might be.)

Somehow though, I would have thought Simon Sheikh should be aware of that, and running for the Green Party is unlikely to increase his chances of preselection someday for a winnable seat for a mainstream party. It is puzzling to me why he would willingly forever destroy his political future.

Anna Rose kept repeating what she has been told. She does not understand the science. I would like to see a proper scientific debate between one or two knowledgable people on the skeptic side, and one or two qualified climate scientists on the other side.

A scientist debating with a layman just puts Anna in the position of having to launch ad hominem’s to balance the scales, because she is totally unschooled in maths, statistics, empirical data and scientific method.

When she started by saying she felt that being filmed was ‘creepy’, I thought oh, here we go.

I wondered about Lee’s independence when she admitted to subcribing to Crikey and The Huffington Post.

As always, some only take in what strokes their ego. Aren’t we all tempted to do that? Risking a challenge to our treasured views, not to mention the challenge to our acceptance by other people, is not easy. The insecure can’t come up with the courage to do it. And there’s the rub.

“Could the doco makers have used proper images of graphs, or did it help the public understand the skeptic case by briefly showing an oblique shaded image, and not explaining the significance of the graph (including that the pre-Argo data is near worthless)?”
.

(?) Could the doco makers not used the footage of AnnaRose slouching around outside (2.08 min, ABC edited video) saying that “she would really like to do this entry with out this loopy, paranoid stuff going on.”

There. Got that ad hom in early, ABC. Now we have set the scene & decided who is “loopy & paranoid”…

But, the “loopy & paranoid stuff” is to be found at the 5.33 minute, when AnnaRose proudly claims, “…the consequences are that we will destroy the whole planet!”

At this point, Ms. Jo has a guffaw, and AnnaRose, says “I don’t think it’s funny!”

No, you wouldn’t AnnaRose.

Predicting the end of the world in the way distant future unless we pay an atmospheric tax now is serious stuff!

Rose and her husband are part of the new nomenklatura of climate alarmism. Basically they are just crude propagandists on the make. Hats off to Jo and David for wasting an hour or so of their valuable time to expose Rose as a jobbing hack. Nice cameo from Frank as well.

Keith I am old enough (and maybe you mate?) to have seen this before. Youthful opportunists jumping on a lucrative gravy train on the way up to fame and fortune. Take heart. I can just imagine the youthful Rose in her mature years fronting up for a fossil fuel company against the workers in the next incarnation of the employment court (currently Fair Work Australia) in her middle years, when the blush of youth has left her and after the warming scare has been thoroughly put to the sword. They come and go mate. They come and go.

Evans and Nova UNCUT!
Got a great ring to it guys!
I have told the kids this is mandatory viewing ; might as well make full use of of totalitarian opportunities whilst they are at my disposal……
And perhaps “Media Studies” in Year 12 next year might be all the better for it.

I still think you need to get into the hydrology/atmospheric physics of the issue a bit more. Once you do this, you will realise that once the sun’s energy gets into the atmosphere, there NOTHING that can happen that can cause other heating, bar the energy of the Earth itself.. The energy must come from somewhere. Convection, due to the pressure gradient within the atmosphere, controls the release of heat from the surface and the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 can NEVER have any affect on this convective/conductive heat transfer (except to speed it up by a very tiny amount).
So-called back-radiation, or any form of energy for that matter, CANNOT be trapped in the atmosphere except for a short time and ONLY by a molecule that can actually store latent heat.
Think of the heat released by bushfires, it doesn’t get trapped or accumulate in the atmosphere, because the atmosphere compensates using convection… so why would the tiny amount, if it actually exists, of CO2 warming get trapped.

“Doubling ALL probably would mean that super abnormal volcanic activity had occurred”

In our life times, yes probably the only way a decent amount of CO2 could be released from burial.. But remember that there is an enormous amount of carbon that USED to be in the atmosphere a long, long time ago.

Levels up to 10, 20+ times what we have now have existed in the distant past, when the planet was at its most plant life abundance stages.

Hopefully, in due course, man will gradually release enough of this carbon to bring the Earth back to the green plant it once was, but we have a long way to go !!!

Dave, I was wondering the other day just how much energy has been consumed by the expanded (measured) worldwide biosphere growth over the last few decades or so, since plant life has had access to slightly raised levels of CO2.

.
AndyG55, tonnes of CO2 beyond measure, all those trillions upon trillions of molecules of carbohydrates being made every day by every plant world wide, on land and in the ocean and then how much energy (sun) has been absorbed? What a wonderful world. The CAGW crowd can’t see the beauty for the money. In this video is what we should be saving – not the garbage Anna raves on about.

They forget the cliffs of Dover (all Chalk) are a result of plankton (majority plant) formed over 150 million years ago, the Himilayas only formed 50 million years ago (when India crashed into Asia) and the biosphere has probably never been healthier – but this will cease because all the research is going into environmental destruction delivering renewable energy and collecting money to keep the Annas and Parncutts happy in this world. All fools.

Dave, if you study “food/survival” scenarios, you soon realise that for a very long time (100,000s of years) the biosphere has been balanced on the edge of survival: plant stomata jam packed, CO2 levels at around 240ppm, just above plant life viability.. a tenuous balance !!

Humans are finally bringing real life back to the planet by releasing a small amount of the long buried carbon, and these moronic idiots want to stop this. FOOLS !!!

.
AndyG55,
I’m also sure that the C4 & CAM pathways require sodium Na as a mirconutrient for both those pathways – evolution through fresh water shortage or saline adaption. Stomata adpation is another of the many smart adations that the CAGW crowd can’t buy for $23 per tonne.

A very important point kk. All good “skeptics” should keep in mind never to concede *anything*. Some weak minded “skeptics” have gone as far as to agree that the world is warming, that it is caused by CO2, and that the extra CO2 does come from human activity. All they have left is arguing about the amount of warming caused by a doubling of CO2. This is not a position of strength.

Good “skeptics” need to cast doubt on every aspect of the case for AGW. The temperature record, the basic greenhouse effect, the CO2 level, where the CO2 comes from, climate sensitivity, ice melt etc etc etc.

Never concede anything, and if you do, always remember that you can go back later and pretend that you never conceded.

Look Johnny, it really would be appreciated if you would leave the inverted commas off the word sceptics, as you are insulting us by implying that our scepticism about AGW is not sincere. You can save yourself a few keystrokes into the bargain. How would you like it if I did the same to ‘administrative officer’, leaving the reader to wonder what sort of work you “really” do?

Look ‘Chris M’, i don’t get to see John in person. I don’t get to hear the tone of his voice nor his facial expressions when he speaks. The only expressions I get to see are the ones like the inverted commas he uses which tell me quite a bit about John and his character.

Yet you want John to stop giving us these gems of indicators because you are offended and insulted?

Oh here we go, another aggro ocker. Look mate, I was very likely born well before you, in Queensland as it happens, and have seen your type many times before. John has never offended me, and I am happy to debate robustly and fairly with him – he seems to reciprocate. You are entitled to your nastiness, and I am entitled to my opinion. As things stand I would much prefer to have a beer with John than with you. Let’s leave it at that.

John was commenting on one of my posts and decided to add a twist of his own about conceding points on science.

I answered this with a bit of push and shove relating to the science.

Chris M then made a comment that suggested that John was insulting Chris and myself.

I would have thought that the people referred to as being insulted were those in the thread?

You have jumped in very late apparently carrying some sort of aggro from another non related set of comments.

Despite your earlier insistence I firmly believe that the year 10 student who threatened suicide was a victim of “free speech” and in the context of an earlier suicide by a year 9 girl his threat was a big talking point for a long time. Environment matters.

Free speech should carry with it certain responsibilities towards the community but I know you disagree about this.

I am here to debate and learn and must admit I have learned a lot here, it’s a great site but
having someone keep telling me I am wrong without seriously addressing the issues I raise suggests that that person does not want to learn or investigate; just dominate.

I just have two questions for all you Slayers.
Do you accept that water vapour is a greenhouse gas?
If so, why do you not accept that CO2 has a ‘greenhouse’ effect (albeit weaker) ?
Just one coherent explanation will do.

Both act to cool the surface of the planet. H2O cooling is just rather more complicated, and efficient, because of the possibilities of 3 phases, latent heat etc at normal atmospheric temperatures. Because of this, H2O is a far better surface coolant than CO2.
The amount of energy that H2O can deliver from the surface to cloud level is enourmous !!

The term Slayer was invented by a leading Slayer to describe the group of people who don’t believe in a greenhouse effect, I.e. it included himself.
It is not possible for Slayer to be derogatory any more than ‘Aussie’ or ‘Protestant’ can be derogatory, as it was invented by the same people it labels.

I am unable to believe that there is any such element/material on this planet that qualifies as a ‘greenhouse gas’. There are most certainly radiatively active gasses in the atmosphere. Namely carbon dioxide, CO2, and water vapour, H2O. Water vapour, which is rarely discussed for some wierd reason, is many, many times more active in the infrared electromagnetic bands than carbon dioxide. Water vapour has properties that allow it to remain in the atmosphere in both the solid and liquid phase. This has a huge impact on the temperature lapse rate up the air column. CO2 has no effect on the lapse rate. Increase or decrease CO2 levels in the lower troposphere and all that happens is the extinction level rises or lowers. CO2 can only absorb the avialable energy radiated from the surface. EXTRA CO2 CANNOT absorb energy that is NOT THERE.

CO2 has the most effect in the upper troposphere and above the tropopause where H2O has effectively vanished due to cold. CO2 is radiatively active down to -80C. In the very thin atmosphere near and above the tropopause radiation from CO2 escapes mainly to space.

CO2 is thus the prime COOLANT of the atmosphere. N2, O2, and Ar, 99.9% of the atmosphere, CANNOT RADIATE infrared radiation so can only lose heat to space through the presence of CO2.

If the upper atmosphere was unable to cool to space there would not be a lapse rate and surface temperatures would very soon be unliveable. This is NOT how a greenhouse works.

I am always astounded at the very thought of the earth maintaining a greenhouse effect as if our planet was COMPLETELY surrounded by a blanket of glass (as in a REAL functioning “greenhouse”).

That NOT being the case, how ANYONE can think that a minute thin layer of CO2 (a life essential trace element) could HEAT the planet is EXTRAORDINARY!! (Why would they even contemplate that the extra heat might escape out into space through the imaginary blanket? – doh!!)

I find this as absurd as the people who shout out loudly that we must “save the water” and “don’t waste water”. WTF – where is the water going FFS?

EVERY DROP of water that was here when the earth formed is STILL here now – it’e just been pre-used and discarded over the millennia by a few woolly mammoths and some sabre tooth tigers.

When they say this, they are meaning to be careful in the use of the STORED fresh water.

It is a storage issue, that’s all, exascerbated in Australia by our highly variable and unpredictable rainfall.

Stored water is relatively cheap, water from other sources (desal for instance) is just the opposite.

In Australia’s climate we do have to be a bit careful about our use of stored fresh water, or just do the logical thing and build more storage. Its all about decent planning, and getting people like the Greens (with their moronic No Dams agenda) out the way.

The Greens should have stuck to being real environmentalists, never politicians.

No environmentalist could EVER condone the use of wind turbines, knowing the damage they can do to avian life and damage done in situ. (Think Scotland , where forests have been chopped down to make way for wind turbines, environmental vandalism, not only condoned, but encouraged.)
But a politician could, if it suited their agenda.

No environmentalist could possibly argue against increased CO2 in the atmosphere, knowing it is the gas essential for plant life.
But a politician could, if it suited their agenda.

No environmentalist could possible condone the cutting down of rainforest to grow biofuels, or the diversion of food growing land for biofuels. But a politician could.

The destruction of the real environmental movement, by the political arm of the Green agenda, is a great pity. The corruption of Greenpeace and WWF by political purposes is a shame, they could have accomplished so much, but are now heading in totally the wrong direction.

In Sydney, a lot of the releases into the Hawksbury River are now not from storage, but from A grade treated stormwater and sewage water from the Windsor Richmond area treatment plant. This water is probably cleaner than releases from Warragamba.

Popeye, I think you need to realise that fresh drinking water is an issue for many of the big cities. Theproblem is that there have not been any major dams build for a long time, and populations continue to grow.
Goulburn did actually run out of water due to bad planning, and in 2007 Brisbane’s drinking water supply was in real trouble. (then it started raining again, then 2011 !…..) that’s Australia for you.

We do need to be more careful with our use of stored water, and try to plan for what we think the natural Australian climate can dish up.

There will be bad droughts in the future, that’s the Australian climate. That is a certainty !
How bad? Well, with only a couple of 100 years of data, we can only really guess.

You are correct about no major dams being built for a long time, in Melbourne no catchment dam has ever been built by a Labor government, the best they can come up with are storage dams, pipe lines from existing country storages and unbelievably expensive desalinisation plants while locking up a river (the Mitchell) which has flooded three times in recent years.

One thing we seem to be doing a lot better at nowadays is water treatment.

The thought of taking water from downstream of a modern sewage plant outlet isn’t really an issue any more, because the water let out from those plants is so very close to drinkable already.

For instance, Canberra takes water from the Murrumbidgee, but has to return, after treatment, something like 80% of the amount they take out (iirc). This water flows to places like Wagga Wagga, where the water is used again, down stream. This happens in many country areas. The water put out by the Canberra sewage plant is actually of FAR BETTER quality than is initially taken out of the river.

Yes, the empirical experiment I am running at the moment indicates that CO2 acts as a weak coolant in our atmosphere. For an atmospheric column heated conductivly at the base, radiative cooling at altitude is critical for maintaining vertical conductive circulation. Without this circulation rapid warming occurs. Radiative gasses cool our atmosphere. AGW is physically impossible.

Carbon dioxide released through the burning of fossil fuels is cooling the upper atmosphere, says a group of physicists who believe that a coherent pattern of global climate change in Earth’s upper atmosphere is emerging after more than 15 years of study and debate. Falling temperatures are also lowering the density of the upper atmosphere and causing it to contract towards Earth. This is good news for low-Earth-orbit satellites like the International Space Station, which are remaining in their orbits for longer because of reduced atmospheric drag (Science 314 1253).

Yes they got caught with their pants down! But it matters only if the comparison between the two can get out into the public eye. If it doesn’t get wide ranging attention it won’t matter.

This is a real coup de grace for Joanne and the skeptical cause. But now we’ve got to do the work to make it count. YouTube doesn’t reach out and shove its latest hot video in front of anyone. People only go there voluntarily. So they need to know about it and be motivated enough to go look.

I said as much in reply to Jo’s original thread.What mainstream tv outlet will be willing to air the unedited footage? None in Australia that I can think of! Anyway Australia is small beer on the international stage.The MMGW scam is a world wide problem,so perhaps Anthony Watts, who I understand has a regular TV program on the US cable network would be prepared to telecast the full uncut version, and maybe the ABC’s butchered version as well.International shaming the Warmists and the ABC in this way could be quite useful to the sceptics cause.

Congratulations Jo and David. You managed to maintain (although you can see the frustration building) enormous self control and calm in the face of abject stupidity? more likely ignorance or is it just plain wilfull blinkedness from Anna. You put your position clearly and it was probably the best explanation I have seen coming from the skeptic side as the the issues which are being ignored by too many including our politicians and the MSM.

The green activists are zealots and it is impossible to reason with them. Pointless to even try, really. It is illuminating to contrast Anna’s apparently friendly attitude towards sceptical Nick Minchin with her hostile and dismissive attitude towards you Jo and David. I suggest that this difference is due to a perception of status: Nick as a retired Senator is ‘connected’ and a member of the power elite she aspires to be part of. I doubt very much that climate change will be one of her primary interests five or ten years from now. And yes, as cohenite has already suggested, I suspect that she will end up as a Labor parliamentarian, not a Green, as the former provides more predictable and diverse career opportunities.

You have much reason to be upset with this episode Jo, but your vindication is not far away and I am optimistic that your goodness, honesty and courage will be rewarded in due course. I sincerely hope that 2013 will be your annus mirabilis!

I agree with Trantz, Jo, but for my money, the transcript far outweighs the video. There is not much rivetting action in the video to mantain interest, other than to observe the body language, and the printed word can be studied at leisure.

One major improvement, if I can be so bold. Could you please embed the graphics in the text at the appropriate places? The arguments would be much easier to follow, particularly for those not so familiar with the issues. It is easy to do, even with Microsoft Word. I would be happy to do it for you if you send me the pix, or if you want to do it yourselves, email me for details.

Thanks for posting this Jo/David it was most illuminating, and I think Anna has been caught out.

Given the unfair portrayal at the hands of Auntie – You are completely justified in posting the full video, You argued from evidence all the way, but all we heard from Anna was “… but the (unnamed) scientists say – the vast majority of….” You should have pointed out Einstein’s statement that it would take just one observation to prove him wrong – or was that Maxwell.

I think you should produce you own documentary with the footage you got.

I’m not an expert on body language. On the other hand I have been around for a while. I’ve been in front of groups of as many as 30 people at a time over many years and more than once I’ve seen that telltale superior grin that says, “I know better than you do and I’m going to prove it to everyone.” That expression is all over Anna Rose in every last second of the ABC footage.

I don’t like making a judgment on so little evidence but her own face gives away her intention. She wasn’t at the Evans home that day to learn anything. Her mind was made up long before.

People whose minds are made up could also be described as intellectual fossils. Other than that while I’ve not watched the raw videos yet, I have discovered that the common folk are not so easily gulled by the CAGW priests; this has to be a good sign. (I’m in Sydney with family for Xmas, and back to Perth on Sunday). Holiday reading includes Henry Bauer’s recent book on Dogma in Science etc, (Kindle version), and I am fast understanding what is going on in the science area – due to the policies of the various socialist parties in government everywhere, since 1900, to widen the opportunities of education and higher education, academic standards have been dragged down to the lowest common denominator, associated with competition for grants and the need to produce commercial outcomes as universities. It’s a soft core variation of Lysenkoism or politically correct science.

Worse still is the lack or perhaps misunderstanding of the scientific method – Bauer, correctly I add, has shown that this hallowed of holies of protocol was ditched decades ago. Most of what passes for science today is better described as technologically sophisticated religion; most people working for universities and commericial scientific organisations are thus not scientists sensu strictu, but highly skilled and competent technicians. However as none use the scientific method, they then certainly cannot be labelled as scientists. This conclusion is inescapable from Bauer’s chapter six.

So demonstrating the science is not going to work and another method needs to be considered.

So demonstrating the science is not going to work and another method needs to be considered.

Louis,

As you certainly know, I’ve argued that the problem is political for years already. We’ve won the science debate. Now we need to change tack and win the political war. And the suggestion that we need a PR department looks like solid gold. Now how do we get one?

They expected to get away with some slick editing to prove their point. The interview with Professor Lindzen was a farce, MsRose used him just so she could tell him ‘we can agree to disagree’ and her mention of cigarette smoke was to discredit everything Professor Lindzen has done, she was in ‘attack mode’.
Her superior intellect apparently dismissed the fact that Professor Lindzen has spent most of his life studying Atmospheric Science, she can ask questions (obviously prepared for her) but she can not supply facts to support her argument.

So after being the poster girl for Youth Climate Coalition the best argument Anna Rose can come up with against the avalanche of facts from Jo and David is that she believes in human caused catastrophic global warming because lots of scientist have told her she should.

It is despairingly clear that Anna Rose hasn’t differentiated between empirical evidence and unproven hypothetical models. She accepts the latter as evidence because the scientists she talks to really believe in them and it confirms her ideological position.

Unfortunately it appears the editors in the ABC are cast from the same mold.

Well we now know that it takes only two bits of information to convince a CAGW proponent that the world is about to end,”Climate scientists say” and “we have computer models” – of course run by those aforementioned scientists who say. Facts we can get, and barter scientists numbers and names is a well known drill, but where do I find easily digestible information on how computer models (don’t) work?

the best argument Anna Rose can come up with against the avalanche of facts from Jo and David is that she believes in human caused catastrophic global warming because lots of scientist have told her she should.

Bingo…
Thats why…
1/cricket noises from the $CAGW$ support crowd here..even they can see she was useless
That they dont have the spine to actually admit it here is par for the course…
2/Thats also why the $CAGW$ gang..never want to have any form of public debate…. it would be science against appeals to authority and ad hominems..
same old..same old..

Hi Joe,
Your uncut film of your discussion with Anna was a revealingly sad reflection of the loss of the inquiring mind of our youth.
It makes one wonder what on earth our kids are being taught at University? Certainly not “to independently think” on ones own feet any more?
Anna presents as a “nice person” but in addition is perceived by me as reflecting a classic example of the current product issue from our “new age” universities.
Shallow in knowledge, appeals to authority, soft underbelly, apostle style duty to save the world’s future children (as if the rest of us don’t care), dishonest public appearance verses private thoughts and preconceived opinion,(doesn’t want to talk to you “cooks” anyway – discussion with Nick just prior to accepting your welcome to your family home)ignorant of facts outside her belief system, immature – and yet afforded HUGE profile and status by the ABC and others as a future Star to be followed?
I could go on but these traits are all too familiar as I am sure many of your readers will recognize.
There presently exists a distinct “dumbing-down” of our University output(our kids)as “the left” have overshadowed our Universities in monopolistic fashion to unbalance (some would say unhinge!)the very reason for University existence – that is – to harness the concept of integrity of independent thought within the student population. Teaching kids how to think! This is the real crisis faced by the West. The loss of respect and understanding of independent thought and open minds within our young is a far bigger threat to our future as your film so admirably demonstrates.
Good on you Joe and David for being so polite and patient with your explanations and conduct during what must have been such a frustrating discussion.

This dumbing down is rife. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to undo the job our schooling system has done on our young minds on this topic. Usually I’m greeted with a comment “so we’re not all going to die then?” Dying due to human made global warming is the only takeaway these kids have from there schooling on this subject. Someone needs to be held responsible.

This argument from authority is wearing so thin. How many real climate scientists are there? Climate science is multi-discipline. The quantitative techniques used in these sciences are the same as in other sciences. If you’re an Economist you’ll be we’ll versed in econometrics, if a health professional you might have studied epidemiology, if a finance expert you would most certainly have used various statistical mathematical approaches likes multiple regression, likewise engineering is full of this stuff. In my own 3 degrees I’ve studied this numerous times. My engineering degree was loaded with it.

There is no way Anna would even understand this because her training is not like our training. So she defaults to authority, whereas we who have been trained can read and interpret the science for ourselves and that’s why we end up skeptical about CAGW reports, studies and conclusions.

I don’t believe you can even debate with her because she has no concept of what she is trying to defend. Explaining it to her would be like bashing your head up against a brick wall.

Watching the video by Jo and reading the transcript I got the impression that the cameraman was running the show. Was he the director/producer? Anna Rose hardly asked much at all and if she started to bluster the cameraman seemed to stop for people to ‘move’ presumably for a better angle. Yet if the whole interview had been from one angle that would have sufficed.

Yes the camera man certainly seems to have been creating the piece and Anna was just a puppet that he managed to make only slightly less dumb by his carefully crafted editing and exceedingly partial narrative.

Joe & David’s Kitchen needs to now be spread far & wide, both to educate on the essential points of warming and to show up the bias in program making, two quite distinct purposes.

Anna is right, the planet is going to be destroyed but by the Sun in about 3 to 5 billion years time. I believe we’ll know by mid century if co2 makes any difference.
The thought of us destroying the whole planet is hilarious, poor Anna lives in fear for no reason.

It always comes down to follow the money. Whether Anna is that poorly educated or whether she really understands the scam is debatable. Facts are facts and after seeing the same info discussed four times it seemed to me like they were hoping to catch one of you in a contradiction. Since your position was based on data and facts that was not going to happen. ABC and the Australian government is in a very sad state. Keep fighting this scam it will collapse they always do just ask the pope.

Ashamed?
Proud!
To turn a documentary whereby a converted green science journalist cum skeptical blogger and a mathemetician climate modeller cum rocket scientist shred a round-faced concerned zealot with evidence, into a propaganda piece. A powerful hard punching series of images confirming our suspicions that male white haired denialists using little more than a kitchen to prepare their science are conspiring with big-oil to sentence poor little Anna’s yet unborn offspring to fry. And Jo appears to think it’s all a bit of a joke.
How could the producers themselves, ignore the evidence produced by David and Jo. This is well organised propaganda.
I would love to see the footage of the team getting together with Anna to organise the whole show! They should be proud of themselves!

Proud isn’t the word for it! I expect they’ll be standing in front of their mirrors patting themselves on the back over it for quite a while. I don’t know how they avoid dislocating a shoulder. It’s probably a good thing that hats are out of style these days because I think theirs wouldn’t fit anymore.

It seems to me that Climate ‘scientists’ who believe in models are those that missed the cut in Medicine, Engineering, pure Science and Mathematics, but weren’t dumb enough to be relegated to Journalism School.

Probably a little unfair! My impression is the bright students are going to Law and Journalism.
Sad! Though they are successful in the trough they do not create a better widget. Rome according to Ralston-Saul’s ‘Voltaire’s Bastards’ had the same problem where the educated stop managing their farms and went to enjoy the wealth and power Rome bestowed on it’s citizens.
To the best of my knowledge, the Universities have lowered standards in the pure disciplines or contaminated them by adding the word ‘Environmental’ onto the course name in order to admit the sheep and attract funding.

Sorry I left those bright students out as they generally do not give a shit about their fellow human beings. They are excellent at remembering which number to attach to an appointment to gain maximum refund but lack even a small amount of interest in the patient or curiousity as to why their diagnosis and treatment has failed to cure. Next patient please!
This failure to enquire shows in the support the various medical associations give to the politically correct causes like anthropogenic global warming.

Anna Rose, like other members of the green political class, is building a career that wholly depends on acceptance runaway AGW. It’s not something these folk will easily abandon, even as subjective modelled climate predictions continue to part company from reality.

What I fail completely to understand is how those like Anna Rose et al, all the way up to their political puppet masters, implicitly believe, verbatim, the Science they are fed.

They give the impression that they have checked it out, and it is no contest.

Then in the same breath, they haven’t even bothered to check the real truth about their cure for this so called problem, with respect to replacing the largest source of those emissions, power generation.

Had they sunk the same effort for their AGW belief into finding out the truth about renewable power, they would know, with just as much conviction, that it cannot do what is claimed, effectively replace traditional (CO2 emitting) power sources.

‘Normal’ science, in Kuhn’s sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day… in my view the ‘normal’ scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for… He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination… I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal… a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn’s emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.

I noticed on Elders weather website they have December 2012 as above the average. I had the heater on for part of it. It is absolute rubbish. Must have had the previous temperatures adjsted considerabley

Ms Rose’s unflinching view of ”we must act in case, we can’t take the risk of destroying the planet” is the same insane thinking that saw up to 50 million killed by Malaria, mostly children when DDT was banned with NO substitute offered, these are real deaths not forecast deaths.
She doesn’t care what the cost will be to us, she believes she is saving the planet and any cost is irrelevant, she speaks to scientists but is only prepared to believe the alarmists.
England is experiencing bad weather but 1703 was the benchmark that alarmists need to observe.
If extremes have occurred in the past, then maybe we’re rushing to blame co2.

I noticed Joe Nova that you seemed to fire up a little bit towards the end of your dealings with whatshername, thank goodness for people like you and your husband. People with intelligence and grace enough to suffer such insolence and ignorance. It’s where I fall down.

Does Anna Rose not see the contradiction when she asserts that “climate Scientists” are the only ones whose opinions count yet expect everyone else to take action based on her own interpretation while dismissing opinions from others. Like a true CAGW campaigner she will refuse to debate points with those who presumably have also formed an opinion after taking note of what “climate Scientists” have said.

Her interview for the program Marc Morano illustrates the point precisely, she says “I am not going to engage in point to point debate” because Marc is not a “climate scientist”, also take note of the stream of unsubstantiated insults too.

She says he
is discredited,
makes things up,
insinuates that Marc’s actions are the direct cause of death threats and that Marc has encouraged this.
repeats “known for making things up” but would not specify.
And finally the one insult she got right, Marc is the “worst of the worst republican attack dogs”, he really does do so much damage to the CAGW cause.

Whether correct or not Marc’s response was a stream of information. Seems lucky that you were able to actually get anything on the program at all. The more I read about Anna across the internet, although there is no doubting her passion, the less informed and more conniving she appears.

That is marvellous.
.
These full, uncut videos from Joe & David’s Kitchen are so educational .
.
They should be compulsory viewing for anyone studying Climate or Media.
.
David is wonderful at explaining the essential information & the format (trying to educate a warmist over the kitchen table) is so much more engaging than just talking to a camera.
.
As a case study in just how biased and disinterested in the science was the ABC series this pair of videos, the uncut vs the ABC piece , are invaluable.
.
When has ever such an exposé been pulled of before.
.
Joe & David’s Kitchen, is the perfect companion to the Skeptics Handbook, while the ABC piece is ample illustration of why they are so badly needed.
.
Well done for sticking with that idea, and not letting the program makers get away with murder, as they usually do.

Yes Bob, it is a weird aversion to the truth. I am starting to think that because it is a political issue they think one must support the politics rather than the facts (solidarity forever).
Or maybe it is like Fred Hoyle (I can’t be wrong!). Who knows?

Anna Rose was the real winner in this video. No matter how much her opponents’ mouths were flapping she always finished way ahead.

Just to clarify… this WAS a humble-pie eating contest in Jo’s kitchen, wasn’t it?

(Highlight for me was in View #2 at 1:47:25 when Anna says “but all your evidence, ‘EVIDENCE’, is coming from people who…” and actually uses her hands to indicate scare quotes around the 2nd utterance of EVIDENCE, as though the evidence offered by Jo and David is somehow fake or irrelevant. Who’s the denier now Anna? )

This is just the evidence which Andrew points out at #48 that Anna dismisses out of hand.
.
Anna seems unreceptive to evidence. She’s not able to engage with it. She rather relies on authorities, coming up with lists of ‘talking points ‘ for her which she’s sticking to doggedly and no matter how effectively Jo & David answer them, each one, one after another, she just doesn’t seem capable of taking it in. Can her mind have been so conditioned to only listen to authorities ?
.
Jo’s little ditty needs expanding and releasing something like a Christmas record, to have us all reciting the evidence around the tree for next Christmas.

The ABC’s journalist sic, dressed in a Green top and spouting the lefts save the world mantra showed complete contempt for the evidence presented, Jo, next time try to not carry everything yourself on camera.

Global warming and mental health. Two major issues affecting the wellbeing of Australians.

Using Four Corners, “investigative journalism at its best” no less.

In 2010, in a Four Corners story called ‘Over the Edge’ the ABC slandered those with Counselling qualifications, as opposed to registered mental health providers – psychologists and mental health social workers.

The story was ostensibly about a psychopath who did “therapy” with the public. He had no training of any kind relevant to this work. One of his “clients” jumped out a window.

The Four Corners pitch was that unless a counsellor is a registered health provider, read psychologist or mental health social worker, you could be at risk.

I am a psychologist, and refuse to work in the field. Its news to me that psychologists, until recently, saw themselves as expert counsellors.

Counsellor has now been removed as a community services role, and you cannot get a Counsellor job of any kind unless you are a registered mental health provider.

This is a conspiracy fact, not a conspiracy theory.

Thousands of people with thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars of nationally accredited training are out of work.

All qualified Counsellors have nationally accredited training. Some to the Masters level. But the argument is they are as unfit as the psychopath in the story to help you without possibly harming you.

Hmmmm. That makes sense.

I’m delighted that as much as 50% of Australians believe ‘global warming’ is a lie. Oops, ‘climate change’ since it clearly isn’t warming.

That makes 50% of the public so mind controlled these days, they can’t think their way out of a paper bag.

Is it only 50% ? It feels like more.

I think a much greater number believe the lies told by government, the TGA and registered practitioners, about mental health.

Witness who the public voted in ( or might it have been more cooked data) of the Australian of the Year – Tim Flannery, a global warming proselytizer and now ABC personality; and Patrick Mc Gorry, a psychiatrist.(Read Jon Rappoport for the truth about psychiatry).

There are scientifically verified approaches that work to clear PTSD and all manner of other emotional suffering, which should have revolutionised mental health in the 1990′s, but haven’t.

Most sane people eventually succumb to the straightforward , no-nonsense, presentation of scientific facts that comes from David & Jo’s presentations.

For someone to be so privileged as to have a personal audience with them , lasting over two hours, and still not even begin to show even a chink of understanding, shows how deeply CAGW disinformation has become embedded in its young adherents.

Climate change in a nutshell
As David said ”it’s like a murder scene”
co2 was present, the alarmists ‘arrest co2′ without checking all suspects because they are on government grants to frame co2, blaming co2 keeps them employed.
like all murder mysteries, the real killer is the last one suspected.
ALL the climate models have failed to predict correctly, co2 is not the killer
As usual it will be the detectives who work for free who find the killer
My bet, the climate is not dead, there was no body, so ‘co2 should be released immediately.’

Well done, Jo and David; I don’t think I could have been so patient in explaining and re-explaining. The ABC presentation of this segment was very shallow, as was the whole of its structure. There was no attempt at analysis – the producers just wanted theatre, and to provide an example of “fairness” to both sides of the argument. At her book launch later in Canberra, I asked Anna whether she and Nick Minchin had agreed in advance, what credible information each would require to have a change of mind. She replied that they had not. On further questioning, she said that if the (official) climate scientists changed their minds, she would. The same appeal to authority that David clearly identified.

I sense a change in the weight of opinion; so far it is only slight. The leaking of the draft AR5 will cause a few more to think. My own bet is that 2013 will be a bit of a watershed in opinion – not a complete switch, but a small breach in the dam, that by 2017 will have become a flood. In part, I’m basing this on an expectation that we are likely to see satellite and Argo temperatures remain pretty steady, and ocean level rises remaining constant, or perhaps lessening.

So what will happen to all the busy climate scientists and bureaucrats? The good honest ones who have been working in their own fields on the effects of climate change, will continue to beaver on. Those most obviously on the gravy train, if they’re quick enough, will shift their emphasis on how to deal with climate change effects, an emphasis that many thoughtful scientists have been arguing for some time.

Thanks millions for this, Jo!
Wonder wheter Anna (cute name BTW) got a n y grips of the state-of-the-facts on the topic… And IF she’ll admit/commit herselves/ to the concorted ‘name-of-the-game’… (tax-payers account)

Well(?), we have just the same situation here in Sweden, SVT/SR per excellance, to name a few…

I couldn’t watch it all because it wound me up too much. However, did Anna Rose actually state which low lying countries have had to evacuate people when asked by Jo for clarification??? It’s BS mantra like this that is obscuring the climate debate. Jo and David, I admire your restraint in this program – just as well you had your own video.

Only half way through yet, but it is apparent Anna does not know the difference between a fact and an assertion. Her premise is based on so and so said this or that group said that. She just cannot assimilate the facts.
2ndly, when Anna was asked for her proofs, David and Jo jumped on her quoting models. WHat they said was valid but in my opinion they should have let her finish.
I did see a subsequent interview with her and Professor Lindzen. She was aggressive to the point of rudeness and so far out of her depth but not knowing it, she reminded of the joke about the ninja in battle. Missed said his opponent. Wobble your head then said the ninja.
That sums up this whole problem. The warmists depend on consensus and political evaluations. Sceptics are relying on observation facts. Warmists use post modern science to blur the difference, then use activists like Anna. They are so indoctrinated, they cannot distinguish propaganda from facts and use broad brush terms – conspiracy- and ridicule as their argument. They do not realise those are not logical arguments because they look so good on twitter.

Very very good.
Anna Rose was reduced to saying she was not a climate scientist because she feared the answer that the evidence showed.
The whole transcript is such a neat summary of nearly 30 years of warmist attacks versus real/true data.
In one of the Climategate email exchanges, they discuss lowering the statistical probablity so that all possibilities could be said to be equally likely and therefore the probability of human induced warming was as equally likely as any other scenario and could be equal to or greater than natural variability.
Then they employed professional press release writers. The purpose of them was to scour the world’s papers and journals and conduct smear campaigns and threats of being sacked if the scientists were not quiet.
Unfortunately for these professional attackers, the record proved them wrong.
There was a famous case in New Zealand where they demanded a sceptic should be sacked. An inquiry vindicated him, especially when the warmists refused to release their data.
To our shame , they were using Australian scientists to attack this man.
Since that time, the New Zealand temperature record has been proven to be falsely adjusted upwards.
The trouble is that the likes of Anna Rose are professional activists and know slightly more tha our politicians, so they put things in terms a politician can understand. Note the use of words like, consensus, experts agree, associations agree etc. Note they never drill down to find it is stacked committees acting without the authority of the members and using confected consensus.

Not confident in the significance of the data evidence she would always fall back on the scientist for GW…. She couldn’t bring herself to believe that ‘all those scientist’ could be wrong. Those scientist are in the far minority of scientist but the vocal ones have successfully branded not only themselves as authorities on this but have convinced many that all of thier colleagues are behind them. With the assistance of the media, ex Vice Presidents and others, they have managed to uptain incredible branding heights that is beyond who they are, but with real conviction none the less.

Not even the majority scientist body who is not convinced of CO2 GW, speak out against this whole fiasco publicly, but instead find points in which they can agree (such as a trend of global warming) so as not to disagree with the flow of all this round earth talk!

I agree the last 15 minutes had some great points, and really the whole message you both had was outstandingly valid. But insurance for a home against an asteroid as once mentioned would have been a better analogy to stick with then a vehicle accident! The overwhelming data you had could support such an analogy.

The confusion in the end is that the CO2 issue is mistakingly replacing a need or want to keep pollution down … people think ‘pollutants’ in an emotional sense if they don’t understand the science; especially true as scientist seem to be the ones warning them against it all. In fact, for many, on some level its difficult to understand that factories/industry are spewing out harmless CO2! Its an easy villain,and those that push it know it and use it.

I think it would have helped to have further explored Anna’s belief of catastrophe in all this. At the end of the ABC version she made a very common warmist remark about ‘gambling’ on our future which made me think that it would have been better to have begun that discussion right off in the beginning and then have isolated the various components of the CAGW position before going any further having her agree that they really are separate-able issues. I think there are three major ones, ordered in decreasing relative importance:

1. Is there any compelling evidence that a warmer world will be a worse world, (extreme weather, crop yields, polar bears, etc.)? I hold this as the most important because if they cannot prove this to be true then the balance is irrelevant. Do they realize that the most species on earth, the most diversity of life, do not live in Alaska with the polar bears? The most diversity is in the tropical regions which are also the most temperature stable places showing the least temperature change as earth’s global average temperature goes up or down. History books refute every claim they make concerning “worst ever” weather events, (most/least snow/rain, most cold/hot, strongest hurricanes/tornadoes, etc.), as well as point out that cooler times are historically the ones more associated with famine, disease and wars.

2. Does CO2 control earth’s temperature? If we had no idea whether warmer was bad or not, how much does CO2 actually ‘control’ temperature? Ice core data shows a repeated indication of the reverse – that temperature controls CO2 so, why can’t those same natural and non-CO2 causes of initiated warming after an ice age also be the cause of the slight late 20th century warming? Geologic data shows anti-correlation between CO2 and temperature lasting for millions of years. It also shows that the average CO2 level for earth over the last 400 million years has been much much higher than now and temperature has been considerably higher as well. The only ‘evidence’ they have are models – failed ones. Even if they cannot be persuaded that warmer is better or no problem, if they can’t prove that CO2 in control then #3 is irrelevant.

3. The miniscule amount humans add to CO2 by burning ‘fossil’ fuels will upset some conceived natural ‘balance’. How can there be ‘balance’ when CO2 has varied so much from ice age to ice age and even more over 100′s of millions of years? Even the amount that CO2 concentration varies annually due to natural variation, (more land in the NH), is way more than amount humans add which is about a steady 3% (?). Does their goddess gaia control the number of termites and soil microbes in the world that emit GHG? It’s almost like asking them to admit they believe nature is normally manipulated by some unseen force keeping a ‘balance’ and we nasty humans are screwing it all up. They seem to think that a domesticated cow farting in Nebraska will cause a tornado to go from F2 to F5 but then if it had been a gassy buffalo in the wild, (as there used to be WAY more buffalo at one time rivaling the number of cattle we have now), that’s okay because buffalo are ‘natural’ and therefore have no affect on gaia’s invisible ‘balance’.

Of the above, #3 is the typical alarmist’s most irrational, non-scientific position and therefore the one most difficult to persuade them to abandon. Some just seem to WANT to believe we are all ‘guilty’ of ruining earth by making the climate ‘worse’ for ourselves, plants and animals; it’s the most religious-like part of their position.

So my point is to avoid #3 altogether by getting them to agree in advance logically that, if their mind can be changed on #1 and or #2, both sides agree to skip #3 so as to save them the embarrassing futility of trying to hang on to it and – our being unavoidably prompted to laugh out loud at them…

I wonder what could be done to re-edit the program as a scientific production with only “the science” being discussed and all the politics omitted?

This morning I came across a printout I had done some time ago that showed the Earths CO2 “activity” budget in a new light; for me at least.

I had previously used the general figure of Human output per year as being 3% of total “output” from all sources and this new printout had a diagram that showed carbon based activity and the CO2 that was actually involved and confirmed the 3%.

I was surprised to see that half of the natural turnover was with the oceans and even more surprised to see that the carbon budget was actually Turnover and it was given as 100%.

This diagram was saying that 100% of all natural CO2 was turned over and returned to nature.

I have heard people saying this before, eg Ferdinand Englebeen, but for some reason the pretty colors in the diagram just reinforced the truth that the natural turnover is gigantic compared with the acknowledged human output.

It is obvious that Human origin CO2 would be swept up like a few crumbs, or sparrow farts, in the natural “sequestration” process.

The solution to climate change, tongue in cheek and from a simplistic viewpoint, would therefore seem to be to Control Nature because it has the biggest Footprint.

I know that’s rubbish but just wanted to take a break and write something anti warmer; even if it’s part wrong.

Your comment “Doubtless Anna is being groomed to be an ALP/ABC candidate for parliament, long may she rule over us.” just got me thinking… Isn’t it just about time to have a “Skeptics Party” just like there are “Pirate Parties” in some countries? Geeks, bloggers, and other concerned internet users from all ways of life have gathered to defend what they see as their right to “internet freedom”. Green parties have also people from all ways of life, not only people actually educated on some environmental area.

Shouldn’t we be thinking about “debating” this from the (same) political arena?

[...] It would be nice to know where Moylan’s views are under-represented. I know that I live on the other side of the planet here so I may have the wrong perspective. Did the Gillard Government enact a carbon tax last July to tackle the problem of climate change? Was this policy one of the most stringent in the world? Does the ‘Age’ publish the opinions environmentalists? Does the ‘Age’ give fair coverage of both sides, or does it give voice to those who deliberately misrepresent the sceptic position? Does the major TV network give impartial coverage, deliberately misrepresent one side? For example, when Jo Nova was interviewed for a ‘debate’ on climate. [...]

very interesting. I remember seeing this tv doco, and was disappointed in the blinkered and fixed attitude of Anne. She came across as brainwashed/indoctrinated, supreme in confidence in her own thoughts, unable and unwilling to absorb what David and Joanne presented. I felt she was the naive product of the national education curriculum, and progressive parents, with little insight into the creation of wealth, or anything else to do with free markets enterprise, efficient allocation of capital. She also lacked the self insight to take an impartial stance.

I’m a baby boomer, and it saddens me how blind many are to the manipulative tactics of Leftist idealists in manipulating the education syllabus, tax funded media, and using big global catastrophic issues to quell individuals into the passivity that accompanies learned helplessness, only then to rely on experts within govt to guide us as what to do with our lives.

I think Joanne and David, you learned much from the tricks used by the ABC. I was always told never speak to the media except in a live interview. I’d add that the ideas you were trying to present might have been condensed into a powerpoint presentation, to emulate a school lesson more so. Some might think it is overkill, but never underestimate the importance of simplifying and shortening a message. This applies just as much to blogs, which in this age of verbosity, truth is more likely recognized when distilled, crisp, clear, concise.

BTW Joanne, you are an excellent communicator. It would be nice for you to have a broader platform to spread your condensed insights from. I wonder if you have a relationship with non socialist think tanks – IPA or CIS.

Bruce, thanks, I do keep meaning to figure out a way to do a regular youtube broadcast. There are many people who don’t find it easy to read, and the polls show that they need the other side of the story because all they get are mainstream broadcasts….